Reaction to the Constitutional Court's alimony ruling: 'It is legally sanctioned torture'

Cenk BAŞBOĞAOĞLU

The Constitutional Court (AYM) has ruled by a majority vote that the provision in Article 175 of the Civil Code, which allows for the indefinite application of poverty alimony, is unconstitutional and has cancelled it. Attorney Ezgi Korkmaz, a member of the Lawyers' Voice Initiative (ASİ), shared her assessments on the matter with 12punto.

The application was made by the Antalya 12th Family Court with the request to cancel the provision regarding the indefinite nature of poverty alimony.

AKP Group Chairman Abdullah Güler stated that the regulation would not be included in the 12th Judicial Package expected to come to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey.

'ALIMONY HAS NO GENDER'

Commenting on the Constitutional Court's regulation regarding poverty alimony, ASİ member Attorney Korkmaz stated that when reading Articles 175 and 176 of the current Turkish Civil Code regarding poverty alimony, one does not encounter a term specifying that it is paid by a man or a woman, adding, "This shows that alimony has no gender. The laws use terms such as 'alimony obligor' and 'spouse who falls into poverty.' These words are gender-neutral, but due to the patriarchal dominance in our society, they have been subjected to gender assignment as always."

On the other hand, Attorney Korkmaz addressed another common misconception about alimony, stating, "The claim that 'alimony is indefinite' is false. As regulated in Article 176 of the Law, alimony is terminated by a court decision if the alimony creditor remarries, lives as if married without being married, or for other reasons that can be substantiated based on the circumstances of the specific case. In other words, contrary to the claims, no alimony is indefinite, and it has never been indefinite."

"The reason why poverty alimony is mostly awarded in favor of women is that women are still in a more disadvantaged position in economic and social life. The risk of falling into poverty after divorce is often concentrated on women. Therefore, poverty alimony is not a privilege, but a legal safeguard against the grievances created by inequalities."

'IT DOES NOT EVEN COVER BASIC LIVING EXPENSES'

Stating that Turkey does not consist only of large cities, Attorney Korkmaz commented, "There are still women who are deprived of the right to education, married off at an early age, not allowed to work, and have no economic independence. For these women, alimony is often the only guarantee to hold onto life. Moreover, alimony is determined according to the economic power of the obligor; the real problem is those who hide their income and assets to avoid paying alimony. Furthermore, the alimony amounts awarded often do not even cover basic living expenses."

'IT IS TORTURE'

Regarding the decision, Attorney Korkmaz said,

"This decision is clearly telling women, 'Either submit to violence for a lifetime or be condemned to poverty for a lifetime,' and it is unfortunately a manifestation of the mentality that 'men cannot find jobs because women work,' reflected in a judiciary that cannot be independent. It is a legalized and legally sanctioned torture to be inflicted upon women who want to divorce under the name of marriage, with state approval.

However, the same Constitutional Court decided in 2012 to reject an application of the same nature made for the same reason, on the grounds that it would be contrary to the principle of the Social State of Law. Because it is the state's constitutional obligation to protect the person who will fall into poverty due to divorce. It is clear that nothing has changed in the law over the years, but unfortunately, it is obvious that the practitioners are not the same. Even before this decision by the Constitutional Court, which is completely contrary to law and the Principle of Legal Security, alimony was never indefinite. It is terminated by a court decision if the alimony creditor remarries, lives as if married without being married, or for reasons that can be substantiated based on the circumstances of the specific case. In the presence of reasons requiring the termination of alimony, the alimony obligor can always request the termination of alimony by covering the necessary fees and litigation expenses. Therefore, the basis of the current debate is not whether it is legally possible to terminate the alimony that is claimed to be indefinite; it lies in the desire of the alimony obligor to avoid bearing the litigation costs necessary to terminate the alimony, which they often do not pay or do not want to pay anyway," she said.

'A LIMITED SAFEGUARD'

Attorney Korkmaz expressed the message the Constitutional Court wanted to give with this decision as follows: "To make it difficult for women to divorce regardless of the conditions of violence, oppression, and inequality they are exposed to, to reduce their economic security, and to force them to remain in marriage. Yet, poverty alimony is a limited safeguard that enables many women to hold onto life after divorce.

Another noteworthy point is that all members of the Constitutional Court who made a decision on such an important issue, the consequences of which will affect women the most, are men. The fact that men still have a say in decision-making mechanisms even in a matter that will directly affect the economic and social lives of women is a situation that should be evaluated separately in terms of gender equality."

Regarding what kind of problems women will face, Attorney Korkmaz said, "Since the justification for the Constitutional Court's cancellation decision has not yet been published, it would not be correct to make a definitive inference about the scope and consequences of the decision, but TMK Art. 175 and Art. 176 will continue to be applied as they are.

Today, there are many female alimony creditors who have not been able to collect a single penny of alimony for years despite being entitled to it. If the indefinite alimony practice is abolished, women who still need alimony will have to file a new lawsuit for the alimony they could not collect a single penny for, and for the extension of the alimony period. However, considering the long duration of trials in Turkey, litigation expenses, and the difficulties in accessing justice, this situation could leave women who are truly in need of alimony facing grievances that are difficult to compensate.

On the other hand, for male alimony debtors who have not fulfilled their alimony obligations for years, the expiration of the alimony period could create a de facto advantage. Because these individuals, who have not fulfilled their obligations due to the alimony they have not paid to date, will be freed from the obligation to pay in the future as well upon the expiration of the alimony period, and thus will have effectively benefited from the consequences of acting against their legal obligations. This situation may lead to results contrary to the purpose of protecting alimony-creditor women, and will indirectly place male alimony debtors who do not fulfill their obligations in an advantageous position, acting almost as a reward for them," she said.

'IT IS A POLITICAL CHOICE'

Regarding the background of the decision, Attorney Korkmaz commented, "In my opinion, the background of this debate is not so much the legal nature of alimony, but gender inequality and current political and social policies. Alimony is also political. Because every choice regarding who will be protected economically, who will bear the consequences of divorce, and to what extent social inequalities will be remedied through law is also a political choice.

Alimony has been detached from its legal basis for many years and turned into an ideological and political debate, thus making the economic and social realities that should actually be discussed invisible. Yet, poverty alimony is not a gender-based privilege as claimed; it is a reflection of the structural inequalities women face in accessing education, employment, and economic independence in the legal field. Despite this, alimony is deliberately distorted and presented as an issue where men are victimized."

'LOOKING AT THE COURTHOUSE CORRIDORS IS ENOUGH'

On the other hand, Attorney Korkmaz said, "In my opinion, at the root of these debates, rather than a search for justice, lies the discomfort with women being able to exit male-dominated relationship forms thanks to the safeguards provided by the law after divorce. The problem is not preventing the impoverishment of women; it is women gaining economic independence, knowing their rights, and not submitting to injustice.

Today, a significant portion of the alimony debate is conducted not through legal facts, but through prejudices. Misinformation produced by those who have not read the law and do not know the conditions and reasons for the termination of alimony, as well as the rhetoric of those who engage in male advocacy despite knowing the truth, dominate public opinion. Yet, in reality, there are thousands of women who have not been able to collect the alimony awarded by a court decision for years, and this is one of the issues that should actually be discussed.

However, a few exceptional divorce cases and astronomical alimony examples are constantly presented to the public, and the reality of Turkey is hidden. In reality, the majority of the alimony amounts awarded are not even enough to cover basic needs. Despite this, people who hide their assets, conceal their income, or work off the books to avoid paying alimony can present themselves as victims; and this narrative can be accepted without question.

To see who the real victim is, it is enough to look at the courthouse corridors, not the slogans on social media. Because there, there are thousands of women who have to continue their struggle for life even though they have not been able to collect the awarded alimony for years. I think that the alimony debate should be conducted not with anger, manipulation, and populist rhetoric, but in the light of social realities, economic data, and legal principles," she said.

News Source: 12punto